It caused a certain amount of hilarity in my home after publication. Even our Burmese cat (now alas deceased) laughed at the description of Mrs Hitchens as ‘tall’ (I don’t recall Mr Farndale being specially short) , and the poor creature, no stranger to vanity himself, had to be carried from the room wheezing with helpless mirth after reading the claim that I suffer from ‘low self-esteem. I’d add that some of the words placed in quotation marks couldn’t conceivably have been precise transcripts of what I said.

I’d always thought the jest about Canada was quite good, but so many people take it as a genuine, earnest comparison that I realise now that the image of the sour, humourless, jealous Peter Hitchens conflicts so totally with a response of this kind that they simply can’t absorb it.

What interested me when I read it again after all these years was how many of the points put to me by Mr Farndale are exactly the same as, or enormously similar to, the sort of questions I get asked by left-wing interviewers today, the psychologising, the stuff about my brother, the idea that I do it for effect. I’ve given my responses to them over and over again, but the people who come to interview me now never seem to have paid any attention to my replies, and just come up with the same stuff over and over again. The idea that my conclusions are reasoned and researched, rather than the products of a tortured mind and some sort of complex, cannot be entertained.

I stopped a person on Twitter in his tracks the other day by stating (as I believe to be the case) that my late brother had much more of a problem with my existence than I had with his. He was not asked such questions, though.

Oh, and this is also rather good, about the Tories. From (I think) late 2009.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mr. Hitchens denies having denounced Alan Duncan’s private life, but the column in question quite unambiguously shows otherwise: ‘I do care what Mr Duncan does in private. I don't seek to make it illegal but I think it is morally wrong.’ This is perhaps not as strong as a denunciation, but it is certainly an expression of disapproval.

Even if Mr. Hitchens were, as he claims, concerned only with Mr. Duncan’s public pronouncement of his homosexuality, I fail to see how this would be incompatible with holding conservative political beliefs. Specifically, what is conservative about a life of secrecy and deception, as would have been the only alternative to disclosing his sexuality in the face of inevitable media speculation?

Or does Mr. Hitchens believe that practising homosexuals are necessarily debarred from being true conservatives? If so, how do homosexual relationships affect the nature of the family unit, for which Mr. Hitchens (rightly) regards heterosexual marriage as important?

My suspicion is that Mr. Hitchens is reluctant to discuss this topic because he recognises that the standard conservative position on homosexuality is indefensible, but for whatever reason (fear of damaging his conservative credentials?) will not admit this.

Mr Wooderson speculates that I have 'changed my mind about homosexuality' and claims that 'ten years ago he (me) devoted a column to denouncing Alan Duncan's private life'.

I did not *denounce* Mr Duncan's private life. I made the quite different point that outing oneself as a homosexual was not compatible with conservative political beliefs, which I still think it isn't.

In those days, I had not yet grasped that the Tory party was not in fact conservative, so to that extent ( and to that extent only) I've changed my mind. Perhaps Mr Duncan was ahead of me in understanding the true nature of his party.

I continue to believe that all sexual acts outside heterosexual marriage are morally wrong. But I have come to the conclusion that the battle over homosexuality is a side issue and a provocation. So I avoid battle, preferring to fight over the real issue, which is the survival of heterosexual marriage.

Andrew Baumgartner - I think you may well be right in suspecting that Mr. Hitchens has changed his mind about homosexuality. This had occurred to me as well. Considering that ten years ago he devoted a column to denouncing Alan Duncan's private life, his response to gay marriage has been strangely muted.

Perhaps Mr. Hitchens could clarify his position: does he still believe (active) homosexuality to be incompatible with conservatism?

The Canada joke is echoed in the final line of James Kunstler's 'mid-year digest' where he suggests Canada as a possible safe haven from his long-predicted economic catastrophe (caused by dwindling oil). "Canada?... Only one drawback: the view to the south."

I read Farndale's interview with David Frost, which is funny. I was thinking of the film Frost/Nixon with the same actor who played Clough in the Damned United in the part of Frost. I thought it was very witty and entertaining at the start but it lurched off into a ridiculously simplistic Good vs Evil, Liberal vs Reactionary parable and I went to bed. I wish I'd stayed with it now.

Reading this it is like trying to trap shadows in a jar: you think you have one but when you look it has gone again. He has done his homework, that at least is certain, but covers his own tracks assiduously. Now I sit here, the smart pastel shades of his website unexpectedly illuminated under a passing shaft of sunshine, and consider the elusiveness.

He has become a successful writer with six novels to his name, the latest earning favourable reviews, as well as prestigious awards for his work in journalism and broadcasting. Not bad going for a farm boy from Wensleydale, albeit a talented one. Now settled in the Home Counties and comfortably embedded in metropolitan writing and media circles he might wonder at his fortune, surveying from his vantage point high up in Broadcasting House the kingdoms of this world, or at least as far as the Surrey border. But what does he want? I had come here expecting not to like him but am left frustrated, even a little disappointed, as in truth I don't know who Nigel Farndale really is. Nor, I suspect, does he.

Like the curates egg it was good and acurate in parts . The fact you resigned when the Express was bought. is a good reflection on you .Most journalists care not where their stipend is from.
Even controversial folk must abide by their beliefs. Most do not .

I found this part of Nigel Farndale's article interesting:
'...Peter Hitchens never tires of conveying his hatred of the single currency and the promotion of homosexuality and single mothers.'

We are all familiar with the way that Mr Hitchens feels about welafre and single mothers, but I am sure that many readers will - like me - be unsure about the position that he takes on homosexuality. Now we all know that he doesn't like talking about it because many accuse him of homophobia, and that he believes the campaign for same-sex marriage is just an irrelevant distraction, but how many of us know what he really thinks about the 'promotion' of homosexualtiy? Did he, for example, support the repeal of Section 28?

For those of us who have only been following Mr Hitchens for a few years, reading some of the views that he has expressed in the past can be quite shocking; in an article from August 4th 2002, Mr Hitchens says that the 'choice' of homosexuality is morally wrong and should not be accepted as normal because it is the 'wrong' form of sexual relationship and is damaging to marriage. If these are rational views, surely Mr Hitchens - of all people - is capable of arguing his reasoning convincingly, in defence of marriage.

As he hasn't expressed views like this for a while, one can't help but wonder if he has actually changed his mind quietly. Does he no longer think that gay people should be seen but not heard? Has he realised that not all homosexuals have sexual relationships? Has he realised that someone publically announcing that they prefer to share not just their bedrooms but their whole lives (paying bills, watching television, arguing in the supermarket etc) with people of the same sex can not possibly make a difference to the number of hetrosexual marriages?

What you say is true, and is my experience of them as well. Left-wingers are always looking for a reason to discard what you say instead of refuting it with logic or sense. It's because what they believe is based on emotion first and foremost, in my opinion. I remember that five minute interview you did with the clock on the BBC, the presenter was looking at you with that look that said ''can he really be this clever and still believe the horrible reactionary things he does?''

Question(I don't like twitter): You stated our Parliamentary system was effectively a bloodless revolution every few years, but I was thinking that would only really work if both sides respected each others point of view and all understood men/humans were always going to disagree with each other, and that is the way it has worked for so long.
But do you think there might be a danger to this way of doing things due to the Lefts habit of 'liking' or 'hating' opinions instead of 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' with them? You hear it all the time from leftists, ''I abhor your politics'', the endless linking of 'The Tories' to everything nasty bar the Devil Himself. The 'bitter hatred' you yourself have mentioned before. And now the creeping outlawing of even holding or expressing in public some conservative opinions. I feel this is a road that leads to a dark place. Please, would you share your opinion on this matter, I would be very grateful?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.